JohnSSM

Wow...although precession does effect orbits, it isnt considered a function of gravity... And WOW... "The geodetic effect (also known as geodetic precession, de Sitter precession or de Sitter effect) represents the effect of the curvature of spacetime, predicted by general relativity, on a vector carried along with an orbiting body" Im so glad I have the name of the concepts that can verify how I have viewed it correctly and flat out wrong... The Lens Thirring stuff is also amazing...frame dragging is a tough one to view without "friction" between fields...I suppose when I get to the bottoms of every theory that describe different aspects of GR, Ill have to move onto field theory and all the particle stuff...

I never knew wikipedia had such thorough info about this stuff...I was never sure how much to trust it though...seems like yall trust it...the section of gravity waves is filled with great info... It seems that most objects in the universe will radiate waves...it basically comes down to symmetrical events and/or objects and their acceleration... IS this process of radiating its own energy away at all likened to the weak force or entropy in general? it actually seems more a victim of angular momentum...then again, maybe the entire weak force is based on angular momentum and loss.. Its becoming very clear to me that spin and orbits are basically the same thing...an object having spin unto itself could be seen to be orbitting its own differences in symmetry...as if symmetry is what is being equalized or conserved by all the gravitational effects... One thing that hasnt been made clear to me is whether or not objects in orbits or spins have less gravity than they would if not orbitting or spinning...in the example of the binary star system, would those two objects create more gravitational effects if they were separated into open space away from each other? I basically need to figure the gravitational energy for both stars in a vacuum, then figure the gravitational energy of the stars in a quickly rotating binary system and compare the gravitational energy...they way I understand it, the sum of the 2 stars' gravitational forces measured in open space, would equal MORE than the gravitational force of those same 2 stars positioned into a binary system...I did read the entire entry and might have missed this point in the equations...

It seems that all, somewhat massive objects, create gravity (curve space-time). But is this the same act of creating gravitational waves or radiation? It seems that gravitational waves exist when objects interact in each other's fields. But does this account for more gravitational force (curvature) or just ripples within it that effect time and length distortions? The question that i could not answer while reading was..."Does gravity exist beyond this radiation of waves or not?" There is gravity created by GR and then there are sometimes radiations of gravity which actually "shed a bit" of the gravitational force it had....and they "travel" out through the field...but will a gravity wave actually change the "weight" of objects as it passes through? The sun creates gravity on its own...or, it could...but with every object that shares an orbit with the sun, waves are created...so gravity doesnt exist as that radiation...gravity is what is being radiated through? There's some confusion here...

So the schwarschild metric doesnt nessecarily need a symmetrically spherical object like a perfectly round ball?...the symmetry that seems to matter more is the density, caused by the pressure, caused by the interactions...you could actually end up with all sorts of shapes if you were allowed to change the internal density in certain parts of the object....but if you dont, and keep it densely symmetrical, a sphere is what you end up with...From what ive gathered, anything other than 3 dimensional, density symmetry and the object will spin under its own influence...and then schwarszchild no longer can model the object... IS there a model that incorporates non symmetrical objects with spin? And how about adding motion? and other objects? I believe I have found the answer I sought whilst reading on mass quadrupoles... "The mass quadrupole is analogous to the electric charge quadrupole, where the charge density is simply replaced by the mass density and a negative sign is added because the masses are always positive and the force is attractive." So it doesnt take 4 magnets to create this quadrupole of mass...it takes the four dimensions that the mass occupies in space-time...and then you can figure your gravitational quadrupole and how that object effects space time locally, starting at its own center of mass...

That video is just awe inspiring...Finally someone used 3d modelling that shows vectors and space time g flow...why we cant do the same thing on smaller scales to show the geometry of GR in action for a solar system is puzzling... The flow into the zones of much mass in red, slows down and becomes more compact...the flow out of the blue zones of little mass, is faster and more spread out in comparison...Does that mean you could travel faster out of a void, than you could into a black hole, using the same energy?

Ive been looking into rotation transformation since my first post...Finding that the LT was essentially a linear transformation with rotational effects...learning about Boosts and how rotation decreases boost... I have a question about symmetry and spheres in schwarzschild that isnt clear to me from the info ive been reading...I assume they are referring to symmetry of shape, but are they also referring to symmetry of density? Or, does shape really even matter as long as it is determined to be symmetrically dense? I can imagine a symmetrically spherical object, but would it make a difference if one half was gold and the other was sodium? Im trying to create an example where the object were perfectly spherical, but not evenly distributed within..."off balance" so to say... IS schwarzschild only concerned with shape symmetry? Or does it also imply a symmetrical distribution within? Are you saying that we can define what is north? I would think each object would dictate its own polarity, possibly based on the distribution of material and what kind of spin it causes unto itself...spin seems to create poles....

Adopting that view has allowed to me see the existence of space-time as separate from the objects within it....as if space-time were a cartesian like field, and objects created polarized fields within it...

Basically accurate is the firmest rating of accuracy you have ever given me...blush

It gives you the lightcone and world line for the entire universe as a whole?

What I see are objects of mass "surrounded" by their own polar coordinates and curves in 3d, and they all reside within a larger cartesian coordinate system based on outside influences...but the polar must merge with the cartesian to truly connect the object and its own forces to the outside forces acting upon it...vague?

I allready see how the relationship works for the transformation...I totally get it...

Calculators do all that stuff easy...what conversions are you referring to? I cant do the math until I have the values to plug in... And also, what is "d"? They dont define it in the description...lots of times, the biggest difficulty for me is knowing what the terms stand for... Man...what is this? Looks amazing http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html

That really got to the point quickly and clearly...nice link... Apply them to what though? At some point I need some actual data to manipulate to get the 2 space coordinates to solve the equation... Next, Ill ask how Im supposed to get the time off of a clock thats inifinite distance away... I also noticed, they dont transform perfectly between polar and cartesian...doesnt that bother math folk? All Tangence does is take an angle and give it a ratio? and back again? Why could no one ever explain that in high school?

You may not understand the question...the ole vagueness at work, no doubt... I was looking at this equation, imagining that I wanted to solve it myself... where is the proper time (time measured by a clock moving along the same world line with the test particle), c is the speed of light, t is the time coordinate (measured by a stationary clock located infinitely far from the massive body), is the radial coordinate (measured as the circumference, divided by 2π, of a sphere centered around the massive body), θ is the colatitude (angle from North, in units of radians), φ is the longitude (also in radians), and is the Schwarzschild radius of the massive body, a scale factor which is related to its mass M by rs = 2GM/c2, where G is the gravitational constant. I see that I need 2 sets of data for time, and I also see that I need 2 sets of data for "polar postion" or "axis" ... So, if i were attempting to solve the schwarszchild metric where do I get the info to plug into the colatitude and longitude? These measurements assume an axis has been established...How do we establish that axis to make the measurement for colatitutde and longitude? Were sine and cosine developed strictly for transforming polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates?

Yes, how do they determine the north so as to make coordinates based on it? I suppose another way to ask my question is "Are the polar coordinates used to define the schwartszchild metric, on the same axis as motion (the light cone) in the Minkowski model?"

In Minkowski space, it seems that the axis for the dimension of time is represented by the light cone. And it also seems that this dimension is always "aligned" with one of the space dimensions. The observer in the "hypersurface of the present" seems to exist in a 2 dimensional space frame (x,y) that rotates or transforms at perpendicular angles to the observer's motion, which becomes the space frame (z) and the dimension of time. I am basically describing a graphic at wikidpedia found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space Then I was reading through the Schwarzschild metric info and noticed these 2 terms in the equation. θ is the colatitude (angle from North, in units of radians), φ is the longitude (also in radians), Are those coordinate based terms related to the angle or direction of the light cone in Minkowski's manifold model? I was also hoping to ask how they figured the colatitude and longitude of any object...Where does one harvest that info and how?

There is a class of identical twins who share the exact same DNA code... http://geneticsawareness.org/learn-about-genetics/have-questions-about-genetics/are-identical-twins-100-genetically-identical and what is there in an electron that differs from another? nuttin... http://io9.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-the-universe-was-all-the-same-exact-particle Keep looking for ideas that bring you comfort and make sense to you...the path you take to find your conclusions will be the most unique thing you ever do...and does not have to be real unless that matters to you...

The truth is more important to me than my ideas...I just want to understand...and I have picked up huge amounts of knowledge since hanging around here with you stubborn folk The question "how did they ever prove this math" comes to mind... Right now, im mostly interested in understanding how to figure the four vectors of "an object"...and then how to find the tensor solution which "combines" them... What is the raw data from mass that is used to figure GR? Dont you need to know the volume and mass? and also, how it is distributed throughout the object? If it has momentum, spin...dont all these factors effect the shape of space? I suppose id be happy to see GR solve the spacetime surrounding any object with NO other influences from other objects...a single object solution...The process of what data is needed and to see it plugged into equations... Found this awesome page of info... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exact_solutions_in_general_relativity Physics is like politics...if everyday people knew all the shit going on, they wouldnt believe it...and usually they dont...

So you really create atomic clock technology? Sounds an amazing gig... The only reason i was even referring to that topic was "I cant believe you all let this guy get away with this"...It seemed like nonsense that you let someone else get away with, and my feelings were hurt...twasnt my idea to give empty space time a value, and then also conclude that the value of mass and energy would match it...

Yknow what they say about assuming... I do really wish I woulda made it clear that I was referring to the energy and mass of spacetime...not just spacetime and mass...I was kinda stealing the language from the "infinity hypothetis" in speculations...i do apologize Can I ask someone to use GR to figure for 2 masses in space and what effects these masses have on the shape of spacetime? Where does one begin? What info needs to be gathered to do the equations?

Yes...never....even in that example anyone can see its energy im talking about....and if they cant, its their problem...there is no space-time mass equivalence...energy mass equivalence,,,i would think I wouldnt have to explain that to guys like you...sheesh tee hee

Im just gonna stick with GR for the moment...or maybe years...

Quantum field theory is wacky...i dont even want to go there yet... Where do you get the values from an object to determine its four vectors? where is that info? what is that info made up of? momentum? spin? relative motions? compression and distribution of mass?

Vector space structure... i thought i understood that...every volume of mass contains 4 vectors that account for it's "internal pressures" in terms of energy and time, and when you "average" or "consider all together", you get a tensor for that volume...and that tensor info is what GR geometry uses to figure the space-time and associated vectors within it.... I never imagined a gravitational field without something to create gravity...akin to imagining an electromagnetic field without electromagnetic influences...the only field I knew to have vacuum energy was the gluon field... Ok...this is the vacuum energy that Strange or Mordred has discussed earlier....the ole virtual particle in and out theory... To put it lightly, this vacuum energy is not that well understood... Its supposed to be fuzzy!

If we can just define empty as "no mass and no energy" then, if spacetime DOES have mass and energy when it is empty, what accounts for it?